Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Woman indicted for stealing from lobbyist
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Andy Shaw has an idea…
Andy Shaw – Chief of the Better Government Association says congress ought to get to work to enact a mechanism to temporarily replace a congressman or senator who takes a leave of absence.
“Maybe a chief of staff is temporarily empowered,” Shaw said. “Maybe someone is temporarily empowered, but to deprive 200,000 people of a voting member of Congress, a lobbying member of Congress to get in there and fight for the spoils and pork of government to the extent that that’s legitimate – that’s a real omission.”
If the president is incapacitated, the vice president takes over. So, I suppose it’s something to consider, Still, I have never heard of anyone ever suggesting something like this before. What do you think?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 8:53 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Woman indicted for stealing from lobbyist
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
not with this supreme court…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 8:55 am
If this is such an important issue, where was Andy when Senator Kirk became incapacitated?
Comment by Anon Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:01 am
His suggestion requires a change to the US Constitution.
Comment by It's Just Me Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:07 am
Nah. They need to just have the decency to quit if they can’t do the job they were elected to do.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:08 am
This is the more interesting line–”get in there and fight for the spoils and pork of government to the extent that that’s legitimate” Didn’t know that folks like Shaw recognized any “pork or spoils” as legitimate.
Comment by Madame Defarge Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:09 am
Boondoggle. We’ve done without this for a couple centuries, seems odd that Andy is so concerned about it now.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:10 am
Its great to hear the Better Government Association defend pork barrel spending.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:11 am
–“Maybe someone is temporarily empowered, but to deprive 200,000 people of a voting member of Congress, a lobbying member of Congress to get in there and fight for the spoils and pork of government to the extent that that’s legitimate –
Can the self-appointed Grand Poobah Goo-Goo give us a definition of “legitimate” “spoils and pork” of government?”
I think it’s a terrible idea. Who decides when someone’s “incapacitated?” Who appoints an unelected replacement? Who decides when the “incapacitated” gets to come back?
What if a Congressman or Senator is missing boatloads of votes because they’re running for higher office? Does some Star Chamber remove them and appoint an unelected replacement?
How about situations where elected members of Congress are clearly suffering from some form of old-age dementia? The voters put them in there — who decides that they don’t have the mental capacity to serve.
This is a solution is search of a problem. There have been countless situations over the years in which legislators have been incapacitated for various lengths of time. Where’s the evidence that their constituents suffered?
Presidents are a different story. Somebody has to be commander-in-chief and have those launch codes.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:16 am
The only people who would like this are the so-called “news” programs. Vice-Congressional elections? More targets for scandal? Will the Vice-Representative seek his boss’s job? Oh,the talking head appearances would be endless. If these people are really, really needed for a vote, they are littered in.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:17 am
Andy Shaw is just plain off base on this one.
Comment by Kerfuffle Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:17 am
So where do we draw the line between “medically incapacitated” and “dereliction of duty”?
For example, when a representative or senator runs for higher office, fails to participate in committee work, fails to vote on legislation critical to his or her state, and in general reduces the state’s representation in significant national matters, that elected official has made a conscious decision to penalize the citizens of his or her state.
Should a substitute be appointed to serve, perhaps by the governor? Should there be a “leave of absence” granted for this campaign effort not related to the office for which the person was elected? And should the leave of absence be with or without pay?
Comment by Motambe Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:23 am
I don’t agree. Anyone who can’t serve should resign or be replaced in the next election. Interim replacements aren’t allowed unless the person vacates the position.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:26 am
I just remembered that after 9/11 a proposal was made to appoint temporary members of Congress in the event a terrorist attack wiped out Congress and it was shut down so fast it barely got any media attention. Members of te US House must be elected by their constituents.
Remember when Blago said that Emmanuel asked him to appoint someone to his old seat? This is why I believe Blago was making that story up.
Comment by It's Just Me Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:27 am
Great idea!
Our most recent former Governor could be put in charge of leasing the seats of incapacitiated officeholders.
Comment by titan Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:28 am
Bad idea. I know in cases of prolonged absences Reps or Sens from that state will fill in for the absent Congressperson.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:32 am
Andy Shaw mentions 200,000 people as the number of people that Cong. Jackson represents. Is’nt over 500,0000?
Comment by Humble Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:35 am
It’s an interesting question I will give him that and I think it is worth talking about.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:44 am
Yeah, Shaw is a bit off base on this one, What’s to keep a guy who can’t get elected from paying someone who can and then this person just goes away on a leave……..
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:44 am
Its more like 750,000 but its the US house and the GOP has a solid majority so it doesnt matter. This is media overhype. There just are not any close meaningful votes so it just is not important and it hasnt been in the house for a long long time.
The Senate is differnt Every Seantor is very powerful or potentially so but there is nothing in the constitutaion so nothing will happen unless they bring in Quinn and crew to rewrite on a whim
Comment by western illinois Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:45 am
It was never supposed to get over 60,000 people per representative (see http://www.thirty-thousand.org/).
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:48 am
Andy Shaw is no goo-goo.
He’s an entertainer with an m.c.’s thin grasp of policy. That’s why he takes on the nickle-and-dime, shiny topics. You’ll never see him jump into pensions, Medicaid, etc. It’s over his head.
This flighty congressional replacement idea proves it.
Comment by King Louis XVI Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:48 am
Andy is my least favorite Shaw brother.
Comment by shemp Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:51 am
This is a really dumb idea on multiple levels.
1. There are 537 federal elected officials, and the number of electeds that are active rarely, if ever, drops below about 530.
2. This would require a constitutional change for a problem that impacts a very tiny slice of the population.
3. Typically other Members of Congress help pick up the slack, for example Ted Poe introduced a whole bunch of bills on the behalf of Gabby Giffords after she was shot.
4. The BGA is looking to help each district get its share of pork? Really?
5. This would give Congressmen a way to skip the tough votes by going on leave while someone unaccountable to the voters casts a vote on a difficult issue.
Comment by J Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:58 am
On its face, the BGA idea is just goofy. Who determines the incapacity? Instead, why can’t someone like Senator Kirk vote using Skype or a TV monitor during sessions? I think of all the conferences I’ve attended, either in person or by conference call. I’ve been involved with depositions with sworn testimony where one person is on Skype or a monitor. Why can’t technology be used in a constructive fashion to solve this problem? The rules can be changed somehow to allow this to occur in cases of incapacity or disability to assure everyone that a congress critter isn’t simply “cutting class” and sitting out on a beach somewhere scarfing down a pina colada!
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 10:05 am
I don’t care for the idea. Seems knee-jerk to me.
Comment by Stones Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 10:16 am
Clearly Mark Kirk who hasn’t voted for months should replaced, but Jackson has only been sick for 30 days. Perhaps there needs to be a 60 day grace period before we replace someone.
Comment by redrum Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 10:48 am
If a congressman or senator takes a leave of absence, he or she should be replaced by a voter of the same political party chosen at random from the list of those who cast ballots in the immediately past primary.
I mean, if we’re gonna get nuts, let’s get nuts!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:05 am
“Andy Shaw mentions 200,000 people as the number of people that Cong. Jackson represents. Is’nt over 500,0000? ”
My first thought as well. How can you speak about matters of representation when you are so very, very wrong on a basic fact?
Or is Andy asserting that the needs of over 2/3s of JJJ’s district are explicitly ignored by JJJ?
Comment by Chris Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:08 am
Andy Shaw’s no fool. He know’s it’s a pie eyed notion, but he needed to say something to get either himself or the BGA mentioned on the JJJ topic.
Comment by Brendan Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:13 am
“…Where’s the evidence that their constituents suffered?”
Good point. At the moment, I am not wearing a shirt, but I could put one on.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:13 am
It’s a silly, bad idea… but I don’t get the attacks from some commenters that this isn’t a new issue or where was he when Kirk first became incapacitated. Well… can’t someone long ponder about a problem and propose a solution (no matter how bad the solution is)?
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:15 am
@- J - Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 9:58 am:
RE: “2. This would require a constitutional change for a problem that impacts a very tiny slice of the population.
Actually, that’s debatable insofar as the total number of members in the House of Representatives is set/determined by Congress, not by the U.S. Constitution.
In other words, they could easily pass a law increasing the total number of U.S. Representatives to say 600 and divvy them up among the states, creating more seats and thus leaving fewer people un-represented.
Of course, it wouldn’t solve the problem JJJ being MIA.
Comment by Brendan Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:19 am
At a normal job, either a few people would take on different parts of the position of the person on leave, and/or someone from a temporary agency would be called in.
So it would depend if his staff is doing everything but voting? Then counldn’t they have someone designated from his staff to come in and vote?
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:26 am
A silly idea to think that we need to have our Congresspeople available at all times or have a “spare” in emergencies. They are not that important!
Comment by overcooked Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:35 am
–At a normal job, either a few people would take on different parts of the position of the person on leave, and/or someone from a temporary agency would be called in.–
He was not hired for a job, he was elected to office.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:38 am
Alex, I’ll take stupid ideas for $400
Comment by Shore Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:46 am
Andy’s got a point.
If a congressman is incapacitated, there should be some way to cut away to something else until the person is again able to do the job.
Kinda like the way a TV station handles it when a reporter is unable to do the job for some reason …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0hV8lCcB_E
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:48 am
Terrible idea for the many reasons explained by several comments above. Capitol FAX bloggers appear to be much smarter and thoughtful than Mr. Shaw on this issue.
Comment by downstate hack Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:54 am
I agree we need some sort of replacement procedure or a way to get an official declared unable to serve, either temporarily or permanently. The John Stroger / Todd Stroger cover up is one of the worst things that the insiders can do to people in these cases especially because he was the County Executive.
In JJJ’s case, I think far less damage is being done to the public because he’s simply 1 of 435.
Comment by Siriusly Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 11:59 am
How did HandOut Andy get to be leading reformer?
Cameron must have bumped his head
Meanwhile you can be comforted to know that HandOutAndy only asked for 25 bucks for those who got his press release touting his stand-up act with PQ as demo a program that le +40K to attend college.
“Blah,blah, blah” HandOutAndy,”give me some cash.”
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:09 pm
I’d be sort of troubled by having someone in that wasn’t actually elected.
And the BGA says: “…fight for the spoils and pork of government…” Marvelous.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:21 pm
The Constitution explains how members of Congress are to be replaced when a vacancy occurs but it offers no guidance on declaring a vacancy in cases like this. In theory, an incapacitated member could continue to serve indefinitely assuming he or she continues to be re-elected. There is no provision for a declaration of vacancy as far as I can tell.
While the constituents are denied a representative voting in Congress on their behalf, they are still entitled to some constituent services and the Clerk of the House oversees the affected member’s staff in the absence of the member.
Here’s more:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blvacancies.htm
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:22 pm
I agree with the commenters that this is generally a bad idea, especially with a congressmember when there are 435 of them. I think most states have special election or governor appt provisions in the event that a congressmember resigns or is killed. But here we need the member or his/her representative or govt authority to declare him or her unable to meet duties.
The incapacitated member ought to be off the ballot of the next election, however, if he remains incapacitated. Perhaps in general, there should be a provision that a candidate not be incapacitated to do the job to get on the ballot in the first instance. It does all get rather sticky and full of judgment calls.
Comment by Southern Peggy R Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:23 pm
No. I have a home in former Congresswoman Gifford’s district and her office ran quite effectively while she was recovering.
Comment by PPHS Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:26 pm
Andy brings up a good point. If a plane hit the house and senate on 9-11, every senator could be appointed by the state governors, but ALL 435 members of the House would have to go through a special election. How could we declare war, fund a war, pass ANY bill without the house? How many days would it take to have candidates run and win their house seats? Too long I would say.
The Founders spent 1/2 their words in the Constitution are Article 1 alone (the Congress). It really is the most important branch.
We think the President is all powerful, but ask Obama how his job’s bill is doing? Can’t get a vote on it in the House.
We may need a Constitutional Amendment.
Comment by Union Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:30 pm
The next time the BGA asks for money, I’m going to send the a copy of the Constitution instead.
Andy seriously thinks that this is what Congress should focus on right now? Amending the Constitution to solve a minor, sporadic problem? Yeah, because all the big stuff has been solved…
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:33 pm
I totally disagree with everyone who thinks this is a totally bad idea. There have been some good arguments against it, but none have convinced me yet. I have complete sympathy for Senator Kirk, but the reality is that Illinois IS under represented at this time.
How long are you willing to let an incapacitated person stay on? A couple three months-okay; beyond that, allow the chief of staff (or whoever, but the chief of staff is probably a good way to go)to cast votes until the original elected official is available again.
As to who makes the call, the state governor, the party leader in the house that is affected, the state party leader, maybe the lead doctor on the patient’s case, and the patient himself (if mentally okay) could be a committee or have input to say that the person needs to be temporarily replaced.
One important item would be that when the DOCTOR(s) say the patient is ready to go back, he would retake his seat with no further involvement by the others originally involved.
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:39 pm
Did all the oxygen leave the BGA offices? Stupidest idea I’ve heard today, so far…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 12:43 pm
Any process that the Congress may constitutionally adopt to provide for the long term disability of a legislator has the potential to alter the established political interests which were attached to the displaced office holder.
Well, of course Andy likes the idea, and so many insiders here don’t.
Comment by Anon III Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:00 pm
This won’t satisfy my detractors but let me at least acknowledge my poor choice of words, erroneous statistic and thin rationale, which happens occasionally when you talk before you think it all out. There are in fact 500,000 residents in a Congressional district, and all I meant is that we should consider a mechanism for giving them adequate representation when their elected rep is absent–whether that’s Mark Kirk, Gabby Gifffords of Jesse Jackson Jr. Federal dollars get parceled out in Congress and important votes get taken. The residents of the 2nd District deserve a seat at the table. Peace.
Comment by Andy Shaw Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:01 pm
=scarfing down a pina colada!=
That could apply to both sides of the aisle, Louis.
==
My primary concern about members of congress who are incapacitated and their staff (beyond the “under-represented” issue) can be summarized in one word: ETHICS.
In an era where many officials are often cited for being unethical and borderline criminal during the “best of times”–and considering the tactics and aggressiveness of campaign staff and consultants whose primary focus has been $$ and MANY of whom eventually become staffers–again, I’m worried about who’s “minding the store?” and how well. I’m also worried about the influence others may have on the “incapacitated” member and his staff who are most likely enjoying a huge jump in their popularity, believe they’re more important than ever before by those who are suddenly approaching them, and aren’t being “watched” by anyone.
Especially if they begin to believe that their days are numbered.
What’s to prevent them from colluding to draft bills in favor of those who are going to feather their nests once they get their walking papers? What’s to prevent the official from doing the same? And in the case of feds, there’s alot of damage that can be inflicted upon our Nation–including the overall reputation of Congress–as they run around trying to cut the best business deals for themselves to set themselves up extremely comfortably for life in the private sector.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:14 pm
And incapacitated enough not to be able to appear before the press, on the floor, and to vote probably means…well, he incapacitated. He may no be thinking clearly based on the physicial and emotional scars an illness might leave behind–and the medications he might still be taking, and having adjusted regularly.
But this person is somehow in a position where campaign funds can still be accepted and bums can otherwise be kissed–and he, his staff, and others can still author bills?
While I don’t doubt that they want to get back as soon as possible, I think there should be some motivation behind that. Fundraising should cease and drafting of bills should cease as well until they have fully returned.
And I’ll add that anyone who was truly concerned about ethics and the perception of impropriety–with a true intent to return someday, would volunteer to do that, rather than face the unpleasant music they might hear after the actions taken during their absence come to light.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:23 pm
There’s alot of Cold War history that can be analyzed and possibly applied to this situation. And desk jockeys and others in the lower echelons who were chomping at the bit for “glory,” were perfect targets for recruitment, special favors, blackmail, etc.
And I will NEVER believe that in today’s world of global politics, stuff that happened in the past can’t or won’t be repeated, and that it can’t get any worse the worst incidents and situations already documented.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:32 pm
Sorry.
…rather than face the unpleasant music they might hear after the actions taken during their absence BEGINS TO PLAY.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:37 pm
Thank you for starting the conversation, Andy.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:47 pm
Would “Shaw’s Rule” apply to all politicians (Kirk) or just black politicians (Jackson)?
Comment by redrum Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:53 pm
I think Roland Burris should be the official ” filler iner” for all instances. . He by his own account has the seniority and still has room on his mausoleum for additional offices held.
Comment by Best idea is Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 1:59 pm
Oh, and Louis, the image of an official “floating at the bottom of a glass”–whether faux or real, is not a very pleasant sight. Might be best to curb all of that nonsense.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 2:07 pm
Hat tip to commenter, Michelle Flaherty, for finding that video.
Comment by Well actually... Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 2:08 pm
Why not just let ailing Congresscritters to vote absentee via the Internet?
Comment by Nohopeforillinois Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 3:12 pm
Excellent link, Michelle!
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Jul 12, 12 @ 3:20 pm
Sorry I ticked you off anonymous. But if you had bothered to read my comments more carefully you would have seen that they applied to everyone, not just Democrats. I still think the whole thing as proposed by the BGA is goofy. Why so touchy?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Jul 13, 12 @ 8:52 am